Citation Nr: 9918631
Decision Date: 07/08/99 Archive Date: 07/20/99
DOCKET NO. 94-27 132 ) DATE
)
)
On appeal from the
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in
Boston, Massachusetts
THE ISSUES
Whether new and material evidence has been submitted to
reopen a claim for service connection for a low back
disorder.
Whether new and material evidence has been submitted to
reopen a claim for service connection for a psychiatric
disability.
REPRESENTATION
Appellant represented by: John J. Ford, attorney
WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL
The veteran
ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD
Richard V. Chamberlain, Counsel
INTRODUCTION
The veteran had active duty for training from June 25 to July
9, 1977.
In March 1979, the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) denied
service connection for schizophrenia. A June 1988 RO rating
decision denied service connection for low back pain.
RO decisions after the March 1979 Board decision, denying
service connection for schizophrenia, and the June 1988 RO
rating decision, denying service connection for low back
pain, have denied applications from the veteran to reopen
claims for service connection for a psychiatric disability
and a low back disorder because it was determined no new and
material evidence had been submitted to reopen these claims.
The last RO decision, denying applications to reopen claims
for service connection for these disorders, prior to the RO
decisions being considered in this appeal, was a December
1990 RO rating decision that determined there was no new and
material evidence to reopen claims for service connection for
a low back disorder and a psychiatric disability. The
veteran was notified of the December 1990 RO determinations
in January 1991, and he did not appeal.
In 1992 and 1994, the veteran submitted applications to
reopen the claims for service connection for a low back
disorder and a psychiatric disability. This appeal comes to
the Board from December 1992 and later RO decisions that
determined there was no new and material evidence to reopen
the claims for service connection for a low back disorder and
a psychiatric disability.
REMAND
A review of the veteran's claims folders shows that he had
active service from December 1950 to January 1953 that has
not been verified by the service department. Nor have the
service medical records pertinent to this service been
obtained. While the gist of the veteran's claims is that he
has a low back disorder and a psychiatric disability that had
their onset during a period of active duty for training from
June 25 to July 9, 1977, or that were aggravated by such
service, the overall nature of his assertions is not clear.
Under the circumstances, it is the judgment of the Board that
the veteran's active service should be verified and that the
service medical records concerning this service be obtained
prior to appellate consideration of the claims. Jolley v.
Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 37 (1991).
In view of the above, the case is REMANDED to the RO for the
following actions:
1. The RO should ask the National
Personnel Records Center to verify the
veteran's active service from December
1950 to January 1953 and to provide the
service medical records and any "SGO"
records for this period of active duty.
2. After the above development, the RO
should determine whether there is new and
material evidence to reopen the claims
for service connection for a low back
disability and a psychiatric disorder.
If action remains adverse to the veteran,
an appropriate supplemental statement of
the case should be sent to the veteran
and his representative.
Thereafter, subject to current appellate procedures, the case
should be returned to the Board for further appellate
consideration, if appropriate. The veteran need take no
further action unless notified otherwise, but may furnish
additional evidence and argument while the case is in remand
status. Quarles v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 129, 141 (1992);
Booth v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 109 (1995).
This claim must be afforded expeditious treatment by the RO.
The law requires that all claims that are remanded by the
Board of Veterans' Appeals or by the United States Court of
Appeals for Veterans Claims for additional development or
other appropriate action must be handled in an expeditious
manner. See The Veterans' Benefits Improvements Act of 1994,
Pub. L. No. 103-446, § 302, 108 Stat. 4645, 4658 (1994),
38 U.S.C.A. § 5101 (West Supp. 1999) (Historical and
Statutory Notes). In addition, VBA's Adjudication Procedure
Manual, M21-1, Part IV, directs the ROs to provide
expeditious handling of all cases that have been remanded by
the Board and the Court. See M21-1, Part IV, paras. 8.44-
8.45 and 38.02-38.03.
J. E. DAY
Member, Board of Veterans' Appeals
Under 38 U.S.C.A. § 7252 (West 1991& Supp. 1999), only a
decision of the Board of Veterans' Appeals is appealable to
the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. This
remand is in the nature of a preliminary order and does not
constitute a decision of the Board on the merits of your
appeal. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1100(b) (1998).